Posted on 01/29/2008 11:55:19 AM PST by Sideshow Bob
I generally agree with your scale, but I think Fred gets too much credit for being extremely conservative. Voting against tort reform is a major blemish. My ratings would be:
Obama = 2
Clinton = 9
Edwards = 10
McCain = 55
Giulinai = 58
Romney = 62
Huckabee = 64
Thompson = 67
Hunter = 95
That is simply misinformation. He supports domestic production sufficient for defense related industries and opposes currency manipulation and cheating on existing trade deals. Such is hardly "protectionist."
So you can make judgments but Dobson can not?
>>>You blame Dobson for Fred’s loss, but the fact is, Fred ran a lousy campaign and thumbed his nose at the evangelicals.<<<
I believe you have it the other way around. It was Dobson who publicly trashed Thompson. Whatever the case, any group that Dobson is attached to will never get another dime from me or my wife.
>>>As for me, I prefer Huckabee, but will take anybody over Romney. And that’s includes ‘rats if need be.<<<
I am astonished! Huckabee is a socialist. Not sure about the Christian part. For example, where in the New Testament does it so much as imply that forced redistribution of wealth by government is “Christian”. Yet, along with his like-minded Compassionate “Conservative” currently occupying the White House, that is what the Huckster thinks compassion is. So does all the left, including my wacky left-wing sister.
Also, why am I getting these vibes that you dislike Romney because he is a Morman? If that is the case, that is very Christian of you.
No. I disagree. He may have participated in it. He was not the primary cause.
If a re-branded Libertarian party got some traction, it could probably pull many Democrats out as well as Republicans. Imagine if there was a Socialist, Libertarian, and Conservative party? It would be a different dynamic, and probably would better represent the nation.
But just your issues. We got it.
OK, I’m waiting for the primary cause-surely you don’t believe it was Dobson. If so, would you say that Christians are mind numbed robots and that easily led? If you believe that then all the ones I know must be anomalies.
So you're for adhering to the Constitution except where you disagree with it in its present state?
And matching funds? Has this even been mentioned during the 2008 campaign?
I utterly disagree on your "need" for things to be federalized. Feel free to call for Constitutional amendments on anything you think you "need."
The fact that me & my buddy Fred think there are more effective means of achieving the same or similar political results doesn't make us bad people or not Christians.
Issues that tend to cross state lines, sometimes need Federal regulation. Marriage is of that nature, because existing benefit legislation forces national companies and insurance companies to set up processes for gay marriage the minute one state allows it. States have to decide how to treat gay marriages or civil unions when the people relocate to their state, etc.
If there is no need to federalize some stuff, then why do you think the founding fathers ever federalize anything?
Protectionist, my butt. Not unless you consider Reagan a protectionist too.
Yes, but just the Christian Hucakbaee supporters.
lol
You have a good memory and analytical mind. I would disagree, however, with points #1 and #16, and I would add a #35 and #36: Letting Senator Rick Santorum get beat, and letting George Allen slip away. Conservatives are too reluctant to get in to the fray to defend their side.
Ping for later
There wasn't a primary cause. It was a perfect storm. I think Romney's camp did a great job of spreading the "Fred's lazy" mantra which Huckabee picked up all to easily. Huckabee benefitted in Iowa from being an unknown. By the time people figured him out, Iowa was over. Dobson hurt Fred immensely in a place he should have been strong, evangelical conservatives. I don't think Christians are mind-numbed robots. I do think the average Christian (or average self-identified Republican for that matter) doesn't have any idea how an Amendment to the Constitution is passed. So, when Huckabee said "Thompson's against a Defense of Marriage Amendment" they were swayed. Ditto for RLA.
Finally, I think the conservative media ignored his campaign. Fox clearly bought into the establishment candidacies of Rudy and McCain. And you could not read an article about Fred without seeing "fire in the belly" somewhere within it. Additionally, campaigning as an adult does not draw media attention. Slamming others does. So, his running a campaign as an adult was a mistake.
So, it wasn't just Dobson. It wasn't just evangelicals. It wasn't just Fred. It wasn't just slimy, smarmy Huckabee and his illegal push polls (looking forward to his FEC report on Jan. 31st). It was all of those. And some more.
No, you just need firm state laws and firm state supreme courts.
The convenience of a federal law or constitutional amendment is NOT a reason to have one.
No. 29 is duplicated, so it's actually 44 mistakes.
I'm for amending the constitution in accordance with the provision in the Constitution for amending it.
"And matching funds? Has this even been mentioned during the 2008 campaign?"
Matching funds is the primary way that the federal government excerts influence over issues that has not been delegated to them. Thus matching funds is at the heart of state rights. Has it been mentioned? Sadly not.
I utterly disagree on your "need" for things to be federalized. Feel free to call for Constitutional amendments on anything you think you "need."
Then I suppose that you dissagree with the founding fathers on the things that they already federalized?
The fact that me & my buddy Fred think there are more effective means of achieving the same or similar political results doesn't make us bad people or not Christians.
Dear Supersensitive Sideshow Bob, I didn't call you bad people or un-Christian. But a lot of conservatives, Dobson, and myself included, felt protecting marriage and abortion were key issues and Fred, a great guy, just wasn't on the same page.
No, it doesn't. Insurance companies have to deal with various state regulations for interstate companies all the time. Illinois requires fertility treatment. Aetna doesn't have to cover fertility treatment in Missouri because Illinois mandates it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.